AMD EPYC 4244P vs AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and AMD EPYC 4244P sit at opposite ends of the processor spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical. The data shows an average benchmark score of 34222 for the Ryzen AI 7 350 and 34220 for the EPYC 4244P, a delta of 0%. Both processors land in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. However, this statistical tie masks a stark divergence in workload-specific performance. The Ryzen AI 7 350, a mobile part with 8 cores and 16 threads, wins 6 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC 4244P, a server chip with 6 cores and 12 threads, wins 9. The following analysis dissects those wins, their magnitudes, and what they mean for different usage scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 4244P delivers a score of 23089 against the Ryzen AI 7 350's 16014.5, a 30.6% advantage. This is the largest single-core delta in the entire dataset, and it is mirrored in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC scores 3259 versus the Ryzen's 1958, a 39.9% lead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 single-core, with the EPYC winning 328 to 294, a 10.4% margin. The only Cinebench test the Ryzen wins is R15 multicore, where it scores 2477 against the EPYC's 2327, a 6.4% edge. This suggests that the EPYC's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz, combined with its Zen 4 architecture, give it a decisive edge in rendering workloads that scale with clock speed and per-core efficiency.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Ryzen AI 7 350 wins several math-heavy tests by wide margins. In floating point math, it scores 53230 versus the EPYC's 45546, a 16.9% lead. Integer math also favors the Ryzen, with a score of 85651 against 78709, an 8.8% advantage. The Ryzen also takes single-thread performance in Passmark, scoring 3834 against the EPYC's 3710, a 3.3% margin. Data compression goes to the Ryzen by a slim 0.5% (304089 vs 302606). These wins indicate that the Ryzen's 8-core/16-thread configuration and Zen 5 architecture excel at parallel math operations and certain integer workloads.

The EPYC counters with wins in other Passmark tests. The most significant is find prime numbers, where the EPYC scores 187 versus the Ryzen's 80, a 57.2% blowout. Data encryption also favors the EPYC, with a score of 18232 against 15244, a 16.4% lead. The EPYC wins physics by 31.9% (1981 vs 1349), random string sorting by 12.6% (38048 vs 33266), and extended instructions by 2.1% (22149 vs 21678). The Passmark multithread test goes to the EPYC, 26797 to 24935, a 6.9% margin. These results highlight the EPYC's strength in encryption, prime number generation, and physics simulations, likely due to its higher clock speeds and dedicated server-oriented instruction handling.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI 7 350 is the clear winner in floating-point and integer math, which are foundational to scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that processes large arrays of numbers. Its 16.9% lead in floating-point math and 8.8% lead in integer math are substantial. It also edges out the EPYC in single-thread Passmark performance, making it suitable for applications that rely heavily on single-threaded responsiveness, despite the EPYC's better Cinebench single-core scores. Its 6.4% win in Cinebench R15 multicore, while older, suggests it can handle legacy multi-threaded render tasks competently. For mobile users, the Ryzen's 28 W TDP and integrated Radeon 860M graphics make it a versatile package for on-the-go productivity and light content creation.

The EPYC 4244P dominates in Cinebench R23, with a 30.6% multicore lead and a 39.9% single-core lead. This makes it the superior choice for modern rendering, video encoding, and 3D modeling where Cinebench R23 scores are highly correlated with real-world performance. Its 57.2% win in find prime numbers is a classic indicator of CPU arithmetic logic unit (ALU) efficiency, which benefits cryptography and certain algorithmic trading workloads. The 16.4% lead in data encryption is critical for server-side SSL/TLS termination, database encryption, and secure communications. The 31.9% win in physics is relevant for simulation software. The EPYC's 65 W TDP, while higher, is acceptable for a server/workstation part. Its ECC memory support is a non-negotiable feature for data integrity in server environments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The average benchmark scores are effectively identical. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 34222, while the AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34220, a delta of 0%.

Q: Which chip is better for Cinebench R23 rendering workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P is significantly better. It scores 23089 in multicore and 3259 in single-core, compared to the Ryzen AI 7 350's 16014.5 and 1958, representing 30.6% and 39.9% leads, respectively.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI 7 350 win any single-core benchmark?

A: Yes. In Passmark single-thread and singlethread tests, the Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 3834, beating the EPYC 4244P's 3710 by a 3.3% margin.

Q: How do the two compare on data encryption?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P is the clear winner, scoring 18232 in Passmark data encryption against the Ryzen AI 7 350's 15244, a 16.4% advantage.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 4244P supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 does not have ECC memory support.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4244P has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Ryzen AI 7 350 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 4244P has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the Ryzen and 3.80 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 5.10 GHz, respectively. TDP differs dramatically: 28 W for the mobile Ryzen versus 65 W for the server EPYC. Sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. The Ryzen's process node is 4 nm, while the EPYC uses 5 nm. The die size is 195 mm² for the Ryzen, compared to 71 mm² for the EPYC. The EPYC has a published transistor count of 6,570 million; no transistor count is listed for the Ryzen. Memory support also differs: the Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the EPYC supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Ryzen and 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. PCIe support differs: the Ryzen has Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC has Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The Ryzen's integrated graphics are Radeon 860M, whereas the EPYC has Radeon Graphics. The Ryzen is marked for the Mobile segment, the EPYC for Server/Workstation. Release dates differ, with the Ryzen releasing on 2025-01-05 and the EPYC on 2024-05-20. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $229; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear. The Ryzen AI 7 350 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Krackan Point, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation that combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The EPYC 4244P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, from the EPYC 4004 series. It is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. Cache configurations differ significantly. The Ryzen has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core and an L2 cache of 1 MB per core, with a total L3 cache of 8 MB. The EPYC has an L1 cache of 64 KB per core and an L2 cache of 1 MB per core, but its L3 cache is 32 MB shared. This 4x difference in L3 cache is a major architectural advantage for the EPYC in workloads that benefit from large shared data pools. The EPYC supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen does not. The Ryzen's memory bus is dual-channel, as is the EPYC's, but the Ryzen supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the EPYC supports DDR5 only. The EPYC's PCIe Gen 5 interface with 28 lanes is a full generation ahead of the Ryzen's PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, offering substantially higher I/O bandwidth for expansion cards and NVMe storage.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. For mobile computing and general productivity, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is the appropriate pick. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 28 W TDP, make it efficient for battery-powered devices. Its wins in Passmark floating-point math (16.9% lead), integer math (8.8% lead), and single-thread score (3.3% lead) show it handles everyday applications, spreadsheet calculations, and light multimedia tasks effectively. The integrated Radeon 860M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. However, its 8 MB L3 cache and lack of ECC memory limit its appeal for sustained, memory-intensive server workloads.

For server deployments, professional rendering, or security-focused tasks, the AMD EPYC 4244P is the definitive choice. Its 30.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 39.9% lead in single-core make it far superior for modern render engines and simulation software. The 57.2% win in find prime numbers and 16.4% win in data encryption are direct indicators of strength in cryptography and algorithmic processing. The 32 MB shared L3 cache, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes provide the infrastructure required for reliable, high-throughput server operation. While its 6-core/12-thread configuration has fewer threads than the Ryzen, the EPYC's higher clock speeds (3.80 GHz base, 5.10 GHz boost) and server-oriented feature set outweigh the core count deficit in nearly all professional scenarios. Benchmark results indicate that users should select the Ryzen AI 7 350 for portability and general math performance, and the EPYC 4244P for rendering, encryption, and enterprise-grade reliability.